| | Bill,
Thank you for the honest answer to my question. Just for the record, no, I am not on some sinister crusade to undermine Objectivism through "Socratic questioning" or whatever.
(I do wonder what Glenn is so afraid of. I smell fear. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I get suspicious whenever a simple question is met with a bunch of speculations about motives and character. Shades of Randroids. You, Bill, asked me a straight question and I answered it. I saw nothing inherently dishonest in your question. Do you see something dishonest in my questions? If so, please let me know. Isn't trying to avoid discussing or thinking about something called evasion? Have I been guilty of blasphemy or something for raising questions about a forbidden topic? I hold that no premise is so sacred that it cannot be checked. Then again, I've always been a terrible true-believer. Also, Kurt, point taken. I misunderstood. Sorry.)
Anyway, if you are interested in my motives, I have been exploring this topic from top to bottom basically because it has caused a gap in my own understanding of the logical part of Objectivism. Some things appear as a contradiction and have been poorly stated in the literature, so I am trying to get to the bottom of them. It is nothing more that that. (The role of children, specifically, but also the definition of human nature in general.)
Now if we can get around all the insinuations about my honesty, goodwill, etc., I really would like to "chew" on this topic in a civil manner. My manner of "chewing" is to look at the facts without judging, verify that I correctly know what I am considering, then - and only then - make a judgement. I already know the party line backwards and forwards, so regurgitating that over and over is not knowledge. The logical doubts persist.
(I know that many Objectivists prefer to judge first, then understand, and they call that method "Objectivism," but it isn't and this particular Objectivist, me, has chosen a more precise system of cognition.) I stated elsewhere a couple of months ago that I suspended my wish to implement protection of a starving child into law while I study this. I meant it.
Back to the issue. You used a term called "dependent rights." How would you define this? What is a dependent right? This might be an interesting direction to explore. Hell, I am even finding difficulty in understanding the definition of "infant" or "child" in Objectivism.
Rand uses "rational animal" for a human being, with "rational" being the differentia and "animal" being the genus. In Objectivism, a child is an undeveloped "rational animal" who needs time and a series of needs to be met in order to become a mature one.
We are all supposed to be born with inalienable rights (which I understand to mean that our society recognizes these powers indiscriminately for all citizens), yet a newborn is not considered as fully having them, thus it follows that he cannot be considered a citizen - only a potential citizen. Correct? (Yet he is not a potential animal, he is only potentially rational.)
In that case, the former constitutional definition of such person being the equivalent of three-fifths of a free person would be one way of legally looking at it.
I find your argument that parents choose to bring a helpless child into the world lacking when I see all the unwanted (unchosen) pregnancies. I don't think that is a proper basis for parental obligations that will stand the test of logic without twisting the concept of "choose" all out of shape (enter the ever-present "evasion"). I do agree that some biological parents choose to have children and a foster parent chooses to assume guardianship. Orphanages also choose that.
Shouldn't the genus (animal) be thought about more than the differentia (rational) here, since reproduction is more of a biological concern than a rational one? Aren't laws and rights supposed to be for the whole human being, and not merely the differentia part?
Incidentally, just to answer a question that was left in the air, if anyone wants to see children who are in a very real situation without parents (regardless of why), walk into any police station in the country and look at the missing persons list. Theoretically these missing children have parents, but in the situation they are in (the ones who are still alive), they don't. They will only have parents or legal guardians again once they are reunited. If they are never reunited, they are essentially parentless. I didn't answer the call to provide evidence because we are supposed to be having an intelligent discussion, not hairsplitting over patently obvious things in some kind of silly competition.
Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/04, 2:27pm)
|
|
